OUTSIDE @ CLASSIC THEATER GUILD, 4/2/10

by Michael Eck
Special to The Times Union
ALBANY – Life is messy but drama doesn’t have to be.
In North Greenbush resident Patricia Van Alstyne’s new play “Outside,” Peter von Boyen (David Marcil) is a German man looking back on his past, as he relates the details of his days to a young Irish researcher (Isabella McKeon).
Peter, we learn, was a Nazi officer; he was bisexual; he was in love with a married couple, who he had helped to introduce so that he could continue to make love with and be in love with both; he fathered “their” daughter; they were Jewish, so he hid them out in his apartment.
He saved a young Jewish girl from being beaten and raped by fellow Nazi officers; and he brought her into the apartment, too.
He later sent the the daughter and the foundling to Ireland, for their own safety; and when, soon after their departure, his male lover was beaten to death by Nazis he stole his identity; bought his way into America with stolen secrets; and married his dead best friend’s wife and had another daughter.
Oh, and he was also a spy and operative for the CIA, and he helped bring down the government of Iran in the 1950s.
And this doesn’t even include the sub-stories of lesbianism, gay marriage, gay parenting, adoption rights and…well, you get the picture.
What makes a play great is the author’s ability to distill information, not just to spill it.
But Van Alstyne is too busy fulfilling too many agendas to tell anything near a simple story.
Classic Theater Guild is currently presenting the premiere of “Outside” at the First Universalist Society of Albany, and the troupe is to be lauded for its commitment to staging the work of area writers, but when all is said and done perhaps this effort should be considered a workshop production.
There is just far too much flab in the piece for it to connect on any kind of genuine emotional level. Sure, it pushes all the right contemporary buttons, but so what. Anyone can push buttons.
Van Alstyne has also been sloppy in her construction of the play.
In the opening scene, Max (Mark Adamo) and Marta (Rebecca Marie Frazier) — the married couple — reference the death of Bonnie and Clyde. Moments later, Peter tells them of the coming of Kristallnacht, which they rush to the window to watch. Bonnie and Clyde died in 1934, and Kristallnacht occured in 1938. Pick a year, dear.
Peter’s younger self (Peter Farina) is listed in the playbill as 1930 Peter (please pick a year!). Let’s be generous and say that he was a smart guy and became an officer by age 20. Even at that precocious age he’d be a minimum of 100 years old by now.
Marcil, as Current Day Peter, may be bald and graying, but he’s not even knocking on 70’s door.
The production itself also suffers from an odd mix of stiffness and melodrama.
The wooden Farina, in particular, seems to orate rather than act and his bow at play’s end is Master Thespian 101. And McKeon — the Irish woman searching for her own past — has a deliberate elocution that wavers between a variety of accents.
And all of the cast are prone to uttering their lines as aphorisms rather than poetry, because Van Alstyne has given them no choice. The script is littered with self-congratulatory bon-mots like “religion is a sickness of the soul,” “a mother understands what a child doesn’t say” and “misery echoes into the future.”
Director Richard Morell is also to be commended for getting behind new works but he might have offered a stronger hand to both the writer and the ensemble. If nothing else, he might have demanded a little more physical grace from his actors as they plod through the blocking.
Deep inside “Outside” there is a real story to be told, but Van Alstyne needs to pick which one it is.

No Responses

I happen to think the play was well writen and if you didn’t catch on the first scene was in 1934 when marion was a baby and during the night of broken glass it was supposed to be 1938 when marion was supposed to be 4ish and in the program it says 1930s peter meaning he was a peter from the 30s era

I think for what they had to work with – it was a good play. This is a volunteer effort on the people who put this play together and the same for the actors. I feel sorry for Mr Michael Eck – who seems to think that he was going to a professional play or maybe he was having a bad day. The troupe are all trying their wings in this area. I don’t know if he understands that they only have 2 hours to perform this play and try to put as much information and feelings (even if some of the information may have been little off i.e. Bonny and Clyde) of the time into this play. But I think that Pat Van Alsyne got the point across of what she was trying to say. Each one of the actors – some have more experience then the others – did a excellent job. I still give them a lot of credited. The little girl(Marion) – I think was doing very well. To discourage the actors as Mr. Michael Eck did is horrible. To me it was an enjoyable afternoon.

I don’t think the actors were “discouraged” at all in this review. I think he provided a detailed critique of the work as a whole. If local artists can’t take and grow from constructive criticism…why bother even having reviewers? As someone who participates in theater locally, I’d rather have someone be honest and learn from that…then know the newspapers will write fluffy complimentary pieces about everything that is produced locally. If people disagree with the review they should really provide more substance to their comment then…awww…. you may have hurt someone’s feelings.

To theaterfan:
I wasn’t saying “awww….you may have hurt someone’s feelings”. I was saying that he really didn’t point out anything good about the play. I understand constructive criticism but the way Mr. Eck put it – it wasn’t constructive but the sounding of having a rough day. In the overhaul of the play – I still think that the messages got across. I wasn’t worrying about the date of Bonnie and Clyde and I don’t think that anyone went home to check the dates of these events. I don’t think anyone would do that for a movie from a theater.

I have not seen the show, but agree strongly with theaterfan. When Michael Eck, or ANY reviewer, comes and reviews a show, it is very exciting for the cast – they (we) have put in endless hours, and to want someone to come and just say “great job” without putting any thought to their review would be insulting and frankly ridiculous. I can get those kinds of comments from my family. What is far more useful is to get genuine feedback from someone who has seen thousands of shows. Constructive criticism shows that he gave some thought to what he wrote, respects the fact that the cast and crew don’t want mindless reviews, and makes it extra exciting when the review is positive.